Schneier on Security: The War on Photography
Schneier on Security: The War on Photography: Bruce Schneier, writing for the Guardian, has penned an article entitled “The War on Photography.” In Schneier’s article he points out the that harassing photographers in the name of national security is simply nonsense.
From Schneier:
“Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography. Photographers have been harassed, questioned, detained, arrested or worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We’ve been repeatedly told to watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is required.
Except that it’s nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn’t photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn’t photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn’t photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren’t being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn’t known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about — the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 — no photography.”
Schneier goes on to point out that with 50 billion photos taken in the US every year that even if terrorists did enjoy the hobby of photography, that the likelihood of anyone taking a photo of anything being an actual terrorist is infinitesimal.
Personally I think that most of the time when police, security guards, etc. try to obstruct and harass photographers they are simply over-stepping their authority. Small-minded individuals who like to assert their personal power over other human beings because they feel that they can and they get off on it.
This is why I generally insist on my rights to shoot in public places when challenged. I’m polite in my resistance, but cops and rent a cops, generally speaking, don’t like someone standing up to them — so sometimes altercations take place. Hopefully though these altercations as examples to authority figures. The cases that I like to see most are when police departments or security agencies are sued or are forced to shell out money when they harass photographers.
Unfortunately most photographers don’t resist when an authority figure objects to their work. Most people simply do what they are told and move on. I believe that when people do this it reinforces the behavior and encourages an authority figure to harass the next photographer who comes along.
There are almost no instances where you cannot legally shoot anything you want in public. Stand up for your rights. Photography is not a crime.
Thanks, BoingBoing!
20 Million Things
Teaser for our New PhotoCycle Video Show
Scobleizer : photos : PhotoCycle- powered by SmugMug Robert Scoble posted a teaser video of our new online photography video show PhotoCycle over at SmugMug. Robert, Pro Photographer Marc Silber and I are working on the show which Rocky Barbanica is producing for FastComapany.tv.
Down Can Rain
I Wish You Maybe
Let Your Love Flow
Icahn Letter to Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock
Icahn to Yahoo: Nix the poison pill, now | Tech news blog – CNET News.com
From the letter:
“Until now I naively believed that self-destructive doomsday machines were fictional devices found only in James Bond movies. I never believed that anyone would actually create and activate one in real life. I guess I never knew about Yang and the Yahoo Board. In my opinion, it will be extremely difficult for Microsoft or other companies to trust, work with and negotiate with a company that would go to these lengths.”
Ouch.
The Assassination of Hillary Clinton, The Assassination of Barak Obama
Police Shut Down Artists Assassination Show – City Room – Metro – New York Times Blog: In what would seem to me to be a clear case of censorship and an attack on Freedom of Speech, New York City police and Secret Service agents have shut down an installation by New York artist Yazmany Arboleda which involved the phrases “The Assassination of Hillary Clinton” and “The Assassination of Barak Obama” being stenciled on a plate glass window on West 40th Street in downtown Manhattan.
Arboleda, according to the New York Times, was “led” off to the Midtown South police precinct for what he called an interrogation.
Apparently Arboleda was renting the gallery space in question for an art show that was to open on Thursday and run all day.
From the Times:
“Later, Mr. Arboleda, who is 27, said in an interview: “It’s art. It’s not supposed to be harmful. It’s about character assassination — about how Obama and Hillary have been portrayed by the media.” He added, “It’s about the media.”
“The Secret Service had to do a whole questionnaire with me,” he said. “It was about an hour of questioning. They asked if I owned guns, if I was a violent person, if I had ever been institutionalized.”
Mr. Arboleda answered no. Nonetheless, he said the Secret Service asked him if he would voluntarily take down the exhibition title from the window.
“I’m renting that space; the space was allocated for an exhibition and it’s my right to put those words up,” he said. “They said it could incite someone to do something crazy, like break the window. It’s terrible, because they’re violating my rights. If someone breaks a window, they’re committing a crime.”
He added, “The exhibition is supposed to be about character assassination. It’s philosophical and metaphorical.”
Apparently the stenciled letters have now been covered over with brown paper and blue masking tape censoring the words stenciled by the artist.
Although free speech is not without limits (you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater for instance) it would seem to me that simply stenciling letters on a building saying nothing more than “the assassination of Hillary Clinton” and “the assassination of Barak Obama” should not fall under the same sort of category. Didn’t Hillary Clinton in fact mention the assassination of Robert Kennedy as one of the reasons why she was staying in the race?
Is the “a” word in this case really off limits for artists to present and talk about? Aren’t artists supposed to present society with confrontations about things that might make us uncomfortable? Isn’t exploring why specific words might make us uncomfortable itself worth exploring? Is the “a” word officially taboo like the bomb word at an airport might be? Taboo enough to have your show censored and “led” downtown for interrogation by the cops?
It’s important to note that this was not graffiti art, this was legitimate gallery space rented by an artist for his show.
Thanks, Brad!
DC Security Guard Interupts Fox5 News Interview With Amtrak Offical Being Interviewed About Photography Being OK
Security interrupts Amtrak spokesman who says photos are OK in D.C.'s union station – Boing Boing I’m not sure how I missed this one from Monday, but BoingBoing is out with a story about the recent harassment of photographers that’s been taking place in DC’s Union Station.
This story is straight out of Catch22 though. While the interview is taking place with a senior Amtrak spokesman saying that photography is absolutely legal in the station, a security guard actually interrupts the interview to say that photography is not allowed. You can watch the entire episode on video here.
One of the other interesting things in the news report is a mention that Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton is looking into drafting legislation to protect the rights of people to take photos.